[quote=Mr.Metak2you;13341104]What is the weight comparison, S65 vs S62? I'm always amazed how much lighter the S65 is than even the I6 S54.[/QUOTE]

Excuse my ignorance, but I never really understood the engine weight comparison between the S54 and the S65. The S65 is 33lbs lighter (iron vs aluminum), but on the other hand the E90/92 as the whole car is 300lbs heavier than the E46...so what's the big deal that the engine is lighter?

Excuse my ignorance, but I never really understood the engine weight comparison between the S54 and the S65. The S65 is 33lbs lighter (iron vs aluminum), but on the other hand the E90/92 as the whole car is 300lbs heavier than the E46...so what's the big deal that the engine is lighter?

Two reasons...
First, the car would be 333lbs heavier if the engine wasn't lighter (using your numbers). Lighter is better.
Second, Acceleration is a function of power (to the wheels), weight and traction. Although the engine has little effect on traction (smooth power delivery helps, but both engines have that in spades), but all else equal, more power and lighter is better.

If you can add power and save weight, that is good, so why wouldn't people be excited about BMW's new (six years ago) engine being significantly more powerful 414 vs 333, and also lighter?

Two reasons...
First, the car would be 333lbs heavier if the engine wasn't lighter (using your numbers). Lighter is better.
Second, Acceleration is a function of power (to the wheels), weight and traction. Although the engine has little effect on traction (smooth power delivery helps, but both engines have that in spades), but all else equal, more power and lighter is better.

If you can add power and save weight, that is good, so why wouldn't people be excited about BMW's new (six years ago) engine being significantly more powerful 414 vs 333, and also lighter?

i think his point was the lighter engine isnt helpful if the car weighs more anyway. the goal should have been the entire car being lighter. only advantage is possibly to allow a better front to rear weight distribution because the engine load is carried on the front axle.

i think his point was the lighter engine isnt helpful if the car weighs more anyway. the goal should have been the entire car being lighter. only advantage is possibly to allow a better front to rear weight distribution because the engine load is carried on the front axle.

true, but that doesn't change that the car would have been heavier with a heavier engine. The e9X is heavier for myriad reasons, but the engine is not one of them. The increased power may have contributed by requiring more chassis bracing and beefier drive line components.

The reason people are excited is because it is an impressive engineering feet to improve so much on what was already a world class engine, more power, more torque, higher revving, AND lighter. I BELIEVE that most BMW ///M fans have at least a little engineering nerd in them. I probably have a lot

Two reasons...
First, the car would be 333lbs heavier if the engine wasn't lighter (using your numbers). Lighter is better.
Second, Acceleration is a function of power (to the wheels), weight and traction. Although the engine has little effect on traction (smooth power delivery helps, but both engines have that in spades), but all else equal, more power and lighter is better.

If you can add power and save weight, that is good, so why wouldn't people be excited about BMW's new (six years ago) engine being significantly more powerful 414 vs 333, and also lighter?

Doesn't make sense, car is still 300lbs heavier...sounds to me nothing other than a marketing gimmick. Most people that don't know cars too well will focus on the mere fact that the engine is lighter and overlook the car's weight.

Yes, of course S65 is obviously more powerful and better from most aspects than the S54, I was just getting annoyed by the constant comparisons on the weights on those two engines when it doesn't hold any value when the car itself is 10x heavier the weight savings on the engine.

If one were to bench press an S65 vs an S54 then I can see how the weight difference would matter, otherwise I don't given the facts above.

Doesn't make sense, car is still 300lbs heavier...sounds to me nothing other than a marketing gimmick. Most people that don't know cars too well will focus on the mere fact that the engine is lighter and overlook the car's weight.

Yes, of course S65 is obviously more powerful and better from most aspects than the S54, I was just getting annoyed by the constant comparisons on the weights on those two engines when it doesn't hold any value when the car itself is 10x heavier the weight savings on the engine.

If one were to bench press an S65 vs an S54 then I can see how the weight difference would matter, otherwise I don't given the facts above.

The location of the weight matters...a greater deal where driving dynamics are the subject. We know from the model's launch press release, and subsequent interviews with various entities associated with M Division, that the E92M3's center of gravity is lower than that of the E46M3. However, the overall height/location of the two engines within the respective models is very close. To achieve the overall lower center of gravity, more weight needs to be lower to the ground, obviously. So where do you suppose the engineers are going look to shave weight from the upper half of the car? Roof? Hood? Engine? If you say "All of the above", Bingo!

Paring down the weight of the S65 to net a -33lbs relative the S54 means the prospects for increasing driving dynamics (provided suspension and other factors are duly engineered for optimal performance) are enhanced as the less weight up high and forward offers physics, kinetic energy specifically, less weight to work with toward sending the car off the road in a turn.

Excuse my ignorance, but I never really understood the engine weight comparison between the S54 and the S65. The S65 is 33lbs lighter (iron vs aluminum), but on the other hand the E90/92 as the whole car is 300lbs heavier than the E46...so what's the big deal that the engine is lighter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yugo

Doesn't make sense, car is still 300lbs heavier...sounds to me nothing other than a marketing gimmick. Most people that don't know cars too well will focus on the mere fact that the engine is lighter and overlook the car's weight.

Gimmick? If you can increase displacement while making the engine lighter that is a gimmick too you? Nobody is ignoring the 300lb increase, most people would prefer lighter obviously but are willing to make the trade off otherwise they would stick with the E46. Besides, even with the increased vehicle weight the E9x M3 is 8.4 seconds faster than the E46 M3 to 150mph, you can not argue the performance advantage.
Ref: http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...-bmw-m3-page-4

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yugo

....I was just getting annoyed by the constant comparisons on the weights on those two engines when it doesn't hold any value when the car itself is 10x heavier the weight savings on the engine.

You are missing the point of my original post. I wasn't arguing the vehicle weight comparison but rather the engine weight(since this thread is an engine comparison S65 vs S62).

The problem is people often want it both ways. Many people critisize the M division for caving to the masses with their new stuff and the turbo's etc to essentially address the low torque issue coupled with some gas mileage but real world shows that too be disapointing in terms of mileage.

These same "purists" often complain at the lack of torque for the m3-which first off 99 percent of people do not properly label it as a deficit of engine torque which equates to a deficit of wheel torque down low in the RPM band.

These are the drivers who should not really be in the e9x because if you are not wanting and willing to keep the revs above 5500 when you want to have fun in the car than you bought the wrong car as at 6k and above the wheel torque is superior and as good as the s62 or whatever else.

The same can be sead for the S54 and the S85-the last decade and more the M department did focus on a "purist" car who valued track performance and race technology that could be enjoyed on the road and track.

So those that complain about the low torque then go complain M is moving away from being a purist when in reality they were not content when M was serviing their dedicated purpose driven cars and purists.

The whole torque thing is just so misunderstood. Someone needs to find a better way to present numbers and have no clue why they dont replace maximum Wheel torque as a number rather than engine torque.

Give a wheel torque or thrust is even better at the wheels and a horsepower measurment-than every single car would be truly represented to the naive people who don't understand what engine torque is and how it relates to thrust

Seek an you shall receive:

Sorry, I don't remember if I generated these from chassis dyno numbers or from some other source. Can't say if it is true wheel thrust or not.

id like to have -400. that would be a non gimmick i could really get excited about.

If you add up all of the fairly special weight savings they put into M cars, it would probably be enough to get you excited. Carbon Fiber and Plastic panels, extensive aluminum in the suspension, lighter engine, full stainless exhaust system. Most of these BMW doens't put on the non-M cars and most non-BMW cars don't have any of these. Sure, the M3 is fairly heavy compared to pure sports cars, but it is also an incredibly stiff, solid, quite, sedan that fits four relatively comfortably.

Compare the weight to the C63, also a nice car, or the CTS-V or the Audi RS4, etc. I think the M3 probably averages over 300lbs lighter than those cars.

If you add up all of the fairly special weight savings they put into M cars, it would probably be enough to get you excited. Carbon Fiber and Plastic panels, extensive aluminum in the suspension, lighter engine, full stainless exhaust system. Most of these BMW doens't put on the non-M cars and most non-BMW cars don't have any of these. Sure, the M3 is fairly heavy compared to pure sports cars, but it is also an incredibly stiff, solid, quite, sedan that fits four relatively comfortably.

Compare the weight to the C63, also a nice car, or the CTS-V or the Audi RS4, etc. I think the M3 probably averages over 300lbs lighter than those cars.

yep you are correct. love this car but can see myself starting to consider making it more light weight as i rack up track days and turn it slowly into a more specialized track weapon.

The E9x platform switch involved significant safety upgrades (particularly on side door collisions, frontal and offset collusions) vs the E46 chassis, and you saw that in the crash test results in Europe and the US. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Also vs other sedan-based vehicles (Yes, the M3, whether 2 or 4 door, is a sedan, not a true sports car) ie C63 and RS4, it is quite lighter. Remember this is from 6 yrs ago, a time when carbon fiber was much much more expensive to produce.

Given all the safety upgrades and luxury items packed into M3s, think they did an amazing job with both the engine and chassis under the circumstances at the time. Moreover, vs today's competition, the M3 is still lighter. Hope the next generation will be taken one step further in terms of weight reduction.

[quote=Yugo;13344938]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

What is the weight comparison, S65 vs S62? I'm always amazed how much lighter the S65 is than even the I6 S54.[/QUOTE]

Excuse my ignorance, but I never really understood the engine weight comparison between the S54 and the S65. The S65 is 33lbs lighter (iron vs aluminum), but on the other hand the E90/92 as the whole car is 300lbs heavier than the E46...so what's the big deal that the engine is lighter?

You take the amount of torque an engine can put out. You then factor in RPMS for that engine torque value and in combination the higher the revs, the more of that available torque is applied every "time" (second, ms etc). That amount of torque applied is the engine output which than is put through gear ratios to multiply its force to the wheels.

What don't you get or what is "wrong"

That is why an 8400 rpm car can use the same 280 foot pounds or whatever is available up there, and put out a thrust which kills a 450 foot pound car revving to 5500. The 280 output can be applied 3000 plus times more per quantity of measurement which means total output of force per time yields what we call engine power.